Tuesday, Aug 04, 2020 | Last Update : 11:07 PM IST

133rd Day Of Lockdown

Maharashtra45019628703015842 Tamil Nadu2632222022834241 Andhra Pradesh166586886781537 Karnataka139571625002594 Delhi1384821242544021 Uttar Pradesh97362553931778 West Bengal78232548181731 Telangana6766048609551 Gujarat64684476632504 Bihar5956738508336 Rajasthan4555532051719 Assam4527633429109 Haryana3717330470440 Odisha3629723074248 Madhya Pradesh3428524099900 Kerala268731527885 Jammu and Kashmir2200614032407 Punjab1852711882442 Jharkhand135004794125 Chhatisgarh9820725661 Uttarakhand7800453890 Goa6816487656 Tripura5389360527 Puducherry3982241156 Manipur292017667 Himachal Pradesh2818165813 Nagaland21296574 Arunachal Pradesh175810633 Chandigarh116070619 Meghalaya9022645 Sikkim6882971 Mizoram4962660
  Metros   Delhi  29 Jan 2020  Supreme Court reserves verdict on Nirbhaya convict’s plea

Supreme Court reserves verdict on Nirbhaya convict’s plea

Published : Jan 29, 2020, 1:58 am IST
Updated : Jan 29, 2020, 2:35 am IST

Curative petition by Mukesh and Vinay Sharma was rejected on January 14, 2020.

Supreme Court of India (Photo: File)
 Supreme Court of India (Photo: File)

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its verdict on a plea by one of the Nirbhaya case death row convicts, Mukesh, challenging the rejection of his mercy petition by the President on the ground that the entire material relating to the case was not placed before President Ram Nath Kovind.

The order will be pronounced on Wednesday.


Reserving the order, a bench comprising Justice R. Banumathi, Justice Ashok Bhushan, and Justice A.S. Bopanna observed that they have limited jurisdiction in going into the rejection of the mercy petition by the President and they would check if all the relevant documents relating to the 2012 gangrape case were placed before him.

Questioning the rejection of the mercy petition by the President in the absence of the entire record of the case, senior counsel Anjana Prakash told the court that the Tihar jail authorities enclosed only the nominal roll of Mukesh, his medical report, trial court judgment, and the details of the punishment along with the mercy petition. Ms Prakash contended that there was non-application of mind by the President.


Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, disputed that only limited records relating to the case were sent to the President for deciding the mercy petition by Mukesh.

He handed over to the court two files — one containing notings and the other correspondences relating to the case.

Curative petition by Mukesh and Vinay Sharma was rejected on January 14, 2020.

Contending that “justice hurried is justice buried,” Ms Prakash told the court that Mukesh was subjected to indignities during his incarceration in Tihar jail, including alleged forcible sex with Akshay Kumar and assaults on him requiring his treatment at hospitals.


The court was told that he was put in solitary confinement — a ground for the communisation of the death sentence — and the details of the same were not put before the President while deciding the mercy petition.

Mr Mehta said that the alleged indignities, claimed to have been heaped on Mukesh, could not be a ground for commutation of death sentence.

Tags: supreme court, ram nath kovind, nirbhaya case